|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
I apologise for this. I seem to have posted before I had finished composing what I was saying.
The above should read:
quote:
Originally posted by Billdiv:
I would propose that, before any future discussion on the matter be held, that actual LGBT persons be brought to the table. What a concept!
As RuthW has already implied, there are gay, lesbian and bisexual people on this website. Some of them have indeed posted to this thread.
The opinions offered by them do not seem to massively differ from the opinions of straight people here. Some do not view same-sex attraction as wrong, or as a sin, whilst others do and still others may not be sure. I expect some have always just been attracted to their own sex, some have always just been attracted to the other sex, some have always known they liked both. I expect that there are people who once viewed themselves as straight or gay, who now view themselves as bi. I expect there are some who once viewed themselves as bi who now view themselves as either straight or as gay.
Human sexuality is a complex beast, I think. I think it can change over time within the same individual. I think it is only partially a matter of nature, with a huge stinking dollop of nurture thrown in, as human beings have viewed thier own, and others, sexuality differently over time and over different cultures. Were the ancient Greeks peadophiles? Was a saphist exactly the same as a lesbian? These, to my mind, are interesting questions. Did the modern homsexual, the modern lesbian or the modern hetrosexual even exist in Biblical times? The "common sense" answer may very well be "yes, of course!!", but there is some evidence to the contrary.
I suspect that there are a large number of hetrosexuals who have at least once or twice been seriously attracted to someone of their own sex. I expect that there are a large number of gay and lesbian people who have at least once or twice been seriously attracted to someone of the other sex. But then, I take the Kinsey scale. I know there are problems with it, but it still seems to me to make sense of my own sexuality and that of a number of people I have known for a long time.
It's just that I, personally, do not want to apply ethical standards or take a moral stand as long as all parties are consenting, all are adults, all are human and none are betraying their partners.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Billdiv:
Throughout the discussion on this issue (or, for that matter, gay marriage), there has been one startling problem. It is--out of context and irrelevant Biblical passages notwithstanding--essentially an ethical debate. Anyone versed in ethics knows that one thing is essential in an ethical debate: the points of view of all parties. What is striking in this debate is that the input of actual LGBT persons have largely been ignored or dis-included. Looking over the list, I noticed one which was correctly identified as "I have never actually met a Gay person," or something to that effect. I would propose that, before any future discussion on the matter be held, that actual LGBT persons be brought to the table. What a concept!
Welcome to the Ship. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Now:
Have you actually tried reading through this thread? (Sit down with a nice pot of coffee and give it a shot!) Although they haven't mentioned it here, several of the writers on this page have self-identified as gay or lesbian.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Although they haven't mentioned it here, several of the writers on this page have self-identified as gay or lesbian.
You mean the last page. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
You're right. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Of course, as far as you know, at least one person on this page might be gay....
[ 11. November 2006, 19:15: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:
Originally posted by Billdiv:
I would propose that, before any future discussion on the matter be held, that actual LGBT persons be brought to the table. What a concept!
As RuthW has already implied, there are gay, lesbian and bisexual people on this website.
There are gay, lesbian, and bisexual people on the Ship? OhEmGee! WHERE?!?
*looks in mirror* Oh yes, well, then.
Bill dear, one of the interesting things about the Ship is that someone can be gay, lesbian, or bisexual and sya they are a Christian, and not have to spend all day defending how their sexuality may or may not be in line with Christianity. Instead, we can argue about more important things.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
Billdiv, please tell me that you actually read through all 60 something pages of this thread, thoughtfully and then jumped to the conclusion that there were no gay people on this thread.
If you admit that you just jumped in, read a few pages, then jumped out and posted that we need a token gay person before further posts are able to be made...I will say welcome to the ship and hope that you learn a lot. And I think it has helped me to build some character by reading this thread...and taking it all in. I still am a conservative bible-thumper but I enjoy reading other people's point of views.
Note, I have been here on the ship since 2002. I don't think I have ever posted <<BEFORE THIS POST>> on this thread in the 4+ years I have been here. Yes, this is the first (and may be the last post I do on this thread).
WORD.
[eta: welcome to the ship! ]
[ 12. November 2006, 01:10: Message edited by: duchess ]
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I am not now, nor have I ever been, gay.
Just to set the record ... um ... straight.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Not exactly token lesbian reporting for duty, just to set the record straight. And I was on the last page. And the page before. And most of the pages in the last howevermany.
But I only pop in when I'm not busy talking about cooking or other important stuff.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
Well, we would be here... but hey, so many Ecclesiantics threads, such little time...
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Not exactly token lesbian reporting for duty, just to set the record straight. And I was on the last page. And the page before. And most of the pages in the last howevermany.
But I only pop in when I'm not busy talking about cooking or other important stuff.
Hardly the "token" -- the Sheep self-identified (the shock! the horror! the surprise!) just a couple of posts above yours.
And in just the last couple of pages, seemed to me I had noted more than one or two of my gay brethren. Well, not exactly noted at the time, but was able to identify once the matter was raised.
On the other hand, as no-one feels it necessary to identify orientation at the bottom of every post (nor should they, of course), and as someone has noted, orientation doesn't seem to have a lot to do with opinion -- odd how gay people and straight people are so much alike -- perhaps it's reasonable that Billdiv didn't pick up on what really doesn't matter to most of us.
John
(straight, for the record)
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Hardly the "token" -- the Sheep self-identified (the shock! the horror! the surprise!) just a couple of posts above yours.
Which is why I said "not exactly" token... meaning one of many ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Billdiv:
Throughout the discussion on this issue (or, for that matter, gay marriage), there has been one startling problem. It is--out of context and irrelevant Biblical passages notwithstanding--essentially an ethical debate. Anyone versed in ethics knows that one thing is essential in an ethical debate: the points of view of all parties. What is striking in this debate is that the input of actual LGBT persons have largely been ignored or dis-included. Looking over the list, I noticed one which was correctly identified as "I have never actually met a Gay person," or something to that effect. I would propose that, before any future discussion on the matter be held, that actual LGBT persons be brought to the table. What a concept!
Bill, don't mind us. Jump back into the conversation, just come with different assumptions.
Come back, Bill- all is forgiven! ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Hardly the "token" -- the Sheep self-identified (the shock! the horror! the surprise!) just a couple of posts above yours.
Aye, but I think the last time I actually, you know, posted on this thread was somewhere back around page 35. I randomly clicked here the day Bill stopped by--- must've been feeling super-masochistic or something.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Misquoted by nurks in hell, and it stuck in my craw:
quote:
As you so rightly said, all social dynamics "are fraught with neccesities of trust, acceptance, and unconditional(meaning, non-sex based) love. A person's ongoing mental health depends on these things."
No I didn't say that. I said the family is fraught, etc. Specifically because family is the only arena where you really do have the right to demand unconditional acceptance.Friendship, romance, business-- all these things involve some measure of selection. Since your blood family is required to accept you as-is (whether they fail or not), it is that much more important to preserve that space as safe.
If there are same-sex friends who should probably stay friends rather than have sex, there are just as many straight couples who'd be wise to make the same choice. And there are plenty of heretosexual relationships that develop out of strong freindships. Red herring.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
no nurks yet? has he drowned in the back story?
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Misquoted by nurks in hell, and it stuck in my craw:
No I didn't say that. I said the family is fraught, etc. Specifically because family is the only arena where you really do have the right to demand unconditional acceptance.Friendship, romance, business-- all these things involve some measure of selection. Since your blood family is required to accept you as-is (whether they fail or not), it is that much more important to preserve that space as safe.
Sorry. I quoted you because I thought it was well said. So well said I didn't dream you arbitrarily limited these good things to a 'family' (which is what, precisely? And who says?)
To my way of thinking, God has commanded us to love. Therefore, everyone has both the right to expect it and the duty to perform it.
Unconditional love isn't sentimentality and sop. To love a man, for example, would be to require him to marry one woman as wife, or else to marry no one at all. To suggest love is inconsistent with such restriction would be to say God does not love me because I can't flap my arms and fly.
--------------------
"And does that surprise you?" asked Owleye. "Can a rock understand rocks, or a tree, trees? Only the great can understand the small, and only the greatest can understand all."
Posts: 361 | From: Too far from my shed | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
koshatnik
Shipmate
# 11938
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nurks
Unconditional love isn't sentimentality and sop. To love a man, for example, would be to require him to marry one woman as wife, or else to marry no one at all. To suggest love is inconsistent with such restriction would be to say...
Surely to love someone unconditionally isn't to require him to do anything. That's where the unconditional part comes in. No?
Posts: 467 | From: top of the pops to drawing the dole | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
koshatnik
Shipmate
# 11938
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
To love a man, for example, would be to require him to marry one woman as wife, or else to marry no one at all. To suggest love is inconsistent with such restriction would be to say God does not love me because I can't flap my arms and fly.
Sorry, this has lost me already. To love a man is to require him to do what you say. If I don't agree, that's the same as saying God doesn't love me because I'm not superman, or a parrot?
How? Why?
Apologies if I'm being dense here.
Posts: 467 | From: top of the pops to drawing the dole | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by grushi:
Surely to love someone unconditionally isn't to require him to do anything. That's where the unconditional part comes in. No?
Sure. God loves me, whatever I do. That's why he commands me to be faithful to one wife. Because he cares.
--------------------
"And does that surprise you?" asked Owleye. "Can a rock understand rocks, or a tree, trees? Only the great can understand the small, and only the greatest can understand all."
Posts: 361 | From: Too far from my shed | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by grushi:
Sorry, this has lost me already. To love a man is to require him to do what you say. If I don't agree, that's the same as saying God doesn't love me because I'm not superman, or a parrot?
How? Why?
Apologies if I'm being dense here.
Even tho God loves me, I can't do anything I want. Some things are physically impossibe. Some things are morally impossible.
With physical impossibilites, I can lawfully make machines like a plane to let me fly.
With moral impossibilities, I can sin.
--------------------
"And does that surprise you?" asked Owleye. "Can a rock understand rocks, or a tree, trees? Only the great can understand the small, and only the greatest can understand all."
Posts: 361 | From: Too far from my shed | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
quote:
Originally posted by grushi:
Surely to love someone unconditionally isn't to require him to do anything. That's where the unconditional part comes in. No?
Sure. God loves me, whatever I do. That's why he commands me to be faithful to one wife. Because he cares.
But only if you are married to a single woman does God require you to be faithful to her and her alone.
It is clear from scripture (if that's your basis for discerning GOd's will) that at other times and in other places God has not required you to be faithful to one wife: polygamy and concubines were certainly licit in OT times and apparently (so scripture says) God had no problems with that.
I have no trouble laying the same burden of faithfulness on a man married to another man. Or on a woman married to another woman. And in both cases, as in yours, I would expect the same qualities of lovingness.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
quote:
Originally posted by grushi:
Surely to love someone unconditionally isn't to require him to do anything. That's where the unconditional part comes in. No?
Sure. God loves me, whatever I do. That's why he commands me to be faithful to one wife. Because he cares.
I don't understand your logic here. Would God stop loving you if you weren't faithful to your wife for any reason?
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
It is clear from scripture (if that's your basis for discerning GOd's will) that at other times and in other places God has not required you to be faithful to one wife: polygamy and concubines were certainly licit in OT times and apparently (so scripture says) God had no problems with that.
I have no trouble laying the same burden of faithfulness on a man married to another man. Or on a woman married to another woman. And in both cases, as in yours, I would expect the same qualities of lovingness.
John
Where does the OT have God affirming polygamy? Even if it did, Jesus didn't. Nor has the Church.
A man being faithful to another man is called Friendship.
A man becoming 'one flesh' with a woman is called Marriage.
Nothing good comes from confusion.
--------------------
"And does that surprise you?" asked Owleye. "Can a rock understand rocks, or a tree, trees? Only the great can understand the small, and only the greatest can understand all."
Posts: 361 | From: Too far from my shed | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
I don't understand your logic here. Would God stop loving you if you weren't faithful to your wife for any reason?
God will never stop loving me. This love involves giving me good advice. For example: God tells me to be faithful to my wife. Whether I pay the least attention is entirely up to me.
Basically, I can take God's advice and avoid a lot of pain, or I can learn by bitter experience. In the end, the lesson will be learned.
[ 23. November 2006, 00:52: Message edited by: nurks ]
--------------------
"And does that surprise you?" asked Owleye. "Can a rock understand rocks, or a tree, trees? Only the great can understand the small, and only the greatest can understand all."
Posts: 361 | From: Too far from my shed | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
koshatnik
Shipmate
# 11938
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
Sure. God loves me, whatever I do. That's why he commands me to be faithful to one wife. Because he cares.
I think the issue here is less God's love for us than our love for God. God's love, we seem to agree, is something we cannot change. We can accept or reject it, but we can't make him stop loving us.
One of the ways we show God we love him (although not IMO the only way) is to do what he asks of us.
If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching - John 14:23
I find it useful to step back a bit at this point. Jesus tells us the most important teachings are:
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength - Deuteronomy 6:5
And
Whoever loves God must also love his brother - 1 John 4:21
I think obeying God's commands is implicit in the first teaching here, but I don't think it's the essence of it. The picture I get is that God wants us to love him from the deepest dimensions of our being. Obeying his commands (loving God with your 'strength', perhaps) is an imperfect spin-off of that imperfect love. It's a physical demonstration that we love and trust him enough to struggle to put his will ahead of our own.
What am I trying to say? Just that I think perspective is important, especially when we're debating something here that has caused a lot of people pain, and I think is a problem for many people in accepting the love of God.
Obeying God's commands has no effect on God's love for us. Nor is it the essence of our love for God (although it is a desirable consequence).
As we're on this thread, I guess the main issue is whether a person practising homosexuality is disobeying those commands. It seems this might be a resolved question for you, nurks, but it's not for me. I'd like to expand on this soon but first I'm trying to read through a bit of this thread. 68 pages? Lordy.
For the time being, I'll agree with what John said. Weighing what the bible has to say about the two issues, it seems to me God is more concerned that we're faithful within our marriages than the gender of the person we're married to.
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
I have no trouble laying the same burden of faithfulness on a man married to another man. Or on a woman married to another woman. And in both cases, as in yours, I would expect the same qualities of lovingness.
Posts: 467 | From: top of the pops to drawing the dole | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
nurks, I promised you that I would post my views on Homosexuality if you appeared in this thread, in the deleted first hell thread for you, to answer your question. So now I will post for the first time my views on this topic. I get PM's from time to time from gay shipmates who are curious what my view is on this topic for some reason.
I think it is a sin to engage with sex anytime outside marriage and yes, engaging in sex with the same sex falls in that category to me.
I don't talk about it on the ship much since it is a topic that is extremely divisive. People are wounded from all the things that have been done to them, said to them, over this subject matter. And I don't want to any thoughtless remark I could say end up opening an old wound. I dread it sometimes when a gay person finds out I go to a conservative church...they often seem to brace themselves that I will suddenly grow horns and start spewing forth Antia Bryant tirades. There has been a lot of damage done in the media by gay bashers.
To rehash the old tired platitude, some of my very best friends are gay. They all know what my views are and they do not hold it against me. The others that did, well, they simple do not talk to me anymore since I started holding these views.
That said, I do not stay up at night worrying about what gay people do in their bedroom.
I am more worried about my own sins of gluttony that I seem to fight on a daily basis and also my drinking which makes me run my mouth.
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
koshatnik
Shipmate
# 11938
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:A man becoming 'one flesh' with a woman is called Marriage.
quote:
Basically, I can take God's advice and avoid a lot of pain, or I can learn by bitter experience. In the end, the lesson will be learned.
Perhaps you could explain how a committed, monogamous relationship between two men or two women will result in 'bitter experience' and a lesson being learned?
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:Nothing good comes from confusion.
Perhaps not, but nothing good comes from approaching an evidently complex issue (68 pages!) with presumptive statements of black and white, either.
Posts: 467 | From: top of the pops to drawing the dole | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by grushi:
For the time being, I'll agree with what John said. Weighing what the bible has to say about the two issues, it seems to me God is more concerned that we're faithful within our marriages than the gender of the person we're married to.
I agree that loving from a new heart is different to loving from duty, all the difference in fact between Law and Grace. But the person who loves God from a new heart will not then break God's laws. It's absurd to say "I love God from a new heart. Now I will lie and steal, since it's my love that God really wants."
It's absurd to use God's love of faithfulness as a justification of faithlessness.
To define marriage, for example, as the faithful union of two men is being unfaithful to God.
quote:
Perhaps you could explain how a committed, monogamous relationship between two men or two women will result in 'bitter experience' and a lesson being learned?
I've no idea, but we'll reap what we sow, sure as eggs.
Which slave traders predicted the American Civil War and the slums in Harlem?
For them, the issue was clear: Blacks are inferior and fit only to serve. All the available evidence supported this claim. They mangled the Bible to support it also. Noah's son Ham and all those porkies.
Others said "No. We believe all are created equal." This was grounded in faith and clearly taught in the Bible. Namely: Love your neighbour as yourself.
Very simple, really, tho far more than 68 pages were written about it.
In the same way, some say marriage is a flexible relationship between flexible numbers of persons who for the moment wish to live faithfully together. Marriage is independent of gender, and easily dissolved. Evidence supports this model. The Bible can be contorted to support it.
Others say marriage is one man, one woman, one flesh, till death part. It's a matter of faith. Jesus clearly taught it.
--------------------
"And does that surprise you?" asked Owleye. "Can a rock understand rocks, or a tree, trees? Only the great can understand the small, and only the greatest can understand all."
Posts: 361 | From: Too far from my shed | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
koshatnik
Shipmate
# 11938
|
Posted
Duchess, thanks for your thoughts. A query off the bat: Do you believe homosexual sex within a same sex marriage is a sin?
I appreciate your reasons for not wanting to discuss this topic much - and I agree. Personally I have a couple of reasons for weighing in now.
Firstly, I find homosexuality and Christianity to be one of the big social issues of our day. I find a major assumption that, as a Christian, I automatically believe homosexuality to be a sin. Usually this is isn't seen as a good thing. I care about social issues, so I feel a responsibility to give it some thought.
The second reason is that I find the issue actually impacts my relationship with some of my friends. As you say, I've found that feelings can run extremely high.
For the record I am male, straight and married. I have some wonderful straight friends. Some of them love me but nevertheless also hate or distrust Christianity. There's often a complex back story, but they still often cite the Christian attitude to homosexuality when explaining this hate/distrust. I also have a handful of gay friends. I know they're homosexual, they know I'm a Christian and mostly we get along fine. (I live in Australia. We're all about tolerance - unless you're a darky or a towel head*). For one thing, my friends and I are relatively normal people, and when we hang out we don't tend to discuss a lot of theology. But I've had one experience where on learning that I was Christian, a gay friend broke off the friendship without actually finding out what my views were. This kinda shocked me.
Even if the answer to 'what does God think about homosexuality today?' isn't anything more than 'it's unclear', I feel I owe it to myself, my friends and my faith to be able to say 'I've thought about it, and this is what I think'.
This might be hard to buy on this thread, but right now I don't have a fixed opinion on this topic. I was raised in Anglican and then charismatic evangelical churches where it always seemed a given that homosexuality - however practised - was a sin. But I've found that hard to reconcile with my experience of a loving God, and with the committed and loving relationships I see some of my homosexual friends in.
I'm leaning towards the idea that God is okay with faithful same-sex relationships, but unsure whether it's possible to reconcile with what the bible has to say (and yes, I've read arguments from both sides, including Mel White's mostly excellent pamphlet).
Cheers,
grushi
*joke. Don't PM me.
Posts: 467 | From: top of the pops to drawing the dole | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
I don't talk about it on the ship much since it is a topic that is extremely divisive. People are wounded from all the things that have been done to them, said to them, over this subject matter.
I say "Gay marriage is morally wrong." Fred is offended.
Fred says "Gay marriage is morally right." Now I'm offended.
It's all fair and square. Fred calls me Homophobic and I call him Christophobic. He calls me Bigot and I call him Disordered.
I fail to see why one side of the debate should be gagged, lest we offend. Fred's cunning, you see. He uses 'being offended' as a weapon to silence me. He won't shut up, mind you, whether he offends me or not.
Anyway, once we get past the smoke and mirrors, we discover moral simplicity: Marriage is the faithful union of a man and a woman. Sex is for Marriage.
Very clear. Very simple. Take it on faith, or leave it.
--------------------
"And does that surprise you?" asked Owleye. "Can a rock understand rocks, or a tree, trees? Only the great can understand the small, and only the greatest can understand all."
Posts: 361 | From: Too far from my shed | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by grushi:
quote:
Originally posted by nurks
Unconditional love isn't sentimentality and sop. To love a man, for example, would be to require him to marry one woman as wife, or else to marry no one at all. To suggest love is inconsistent with such restriction would be to say...
Surely to love someone unconditionally isn't to require him to do anything. That's where the unconditional part comes in. No?
Thank you.
The family is the one place where (ideally) the only requirement for position is your existance.
[ 23. November 2006, 04:03: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by grushi:
Duchess, thanks for your thoughts. A query off the bat: Do you believe homosexual sex within a same sex marriage is a sin?
Yes, I do. I do not support gay marriage.
Not willing to discuss that in depth. After 68 pages of this and all the other times it has been discussed on the ship [gays getting married] I realy don't feel I have anything new to add on the why-I-l-believe-that.
You may want to ask me more questions. I may or may not answer them. This is a topic that is hard for me to discuss much.
I don't know how to say things on this topic and I honestly feel like dancing around it.
[ 23. November 2006, 04:20: Message edited by: duchess ]
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
Originally posted by duchess:
I fail to see why one side of the debate should be gagged, lest we offend. Fred's cunning, you see. He uses 'being offended' as a weapon to silence me. He won't shut up, mind you, whether he offends me or not.
I do not find it productive to rehash over and over what others have said. Remember I have been on the ship since 2002. If you think I am afraid of offending people, may I suggest you are very mistaken. I remember at a shipmeet a certain beloved shipmmate having a bone in real life to pick with me over my "all straight single men in California are cheap mofos. Gay men and married men are excluded from this...they are not cheap". I finally retired running that promo into the ground after I found out that some single men were actually hurt by my rantings. And that is never my intent.
No, I just do not see it productive to rehash things. If I saw it as productive, I would do it. I would start threads on the topic and I would take everyone to task.
Instead, I concentrate on things I deem more worthy of my time.
I fail to see how repeating something over and over again, at least the same things being typed, is helpful. It would not help anyone's walk with Christ, nor my own, to hold up a sign and announce my views in depth over and over repeatedly.
Just as in my humble opinion, street preachers hardly win over any converts to Christ. Christ works more through relationships, building a loving friendship with people.
You may want to look at where I live. The Bay Area - San Francisco close by to me. I have grown up here.
There are a lot of things personal that bring up pain for me internally on this topic. I just rather not go there.
And no, it is not offending my shipmates that counts. It is opening another wound. I honestly think there is a difference.
[ 23. November 2006, 04:34: Message edited by: duchess ]
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
I don't talk about it on the ship much since it is a topic that is extremely divisive. People are wounded from all the things that have been done to them, said to them, over this subject matter.
I say "Gay marriage is morally wrong." Fred is offended.
Fred says "Gay marriage is morally right." Now I'm offended.
It's all fair and square. Fred calls me Homophobic and I call him Christophobic. He calls me Bigot and I call him Disordered.
I fail to see why one side of the debate should be gagged, lest we offend. Fred's cunning, you see. He uses 'being offended' as a weapon to silence me. He won't shut up, mind you, whether he offends me or not.
Anyway, once we get past the smoke and mirrors, we discover moral simplicity: Marriage is the faithful union of a man and a woman. Sex is for Marriage.
Very clear. Very simple. Take it on faith, or leave it.
Well now...I guess that settles it (so let it be written, so let it be done). On the other hand, if I am so inclined, I could take on faith that marriage is between two people who love each other regardless of sex. And on most days...I'm so inclined. In fact, I can make any statement at all, claim it is clear and simple, and say take it on faith or leave it. This is a perfectly acceptable reason for believing something. However, if you are going to participate in a debate, you will have to do better than beg the question.
Who the heck is Fred?
[ 23. November 2006, 04:38: Message edited by: Matins ]
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
koshatnik
Shipmate
# 11938
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
I agree that loving from a new heart is different to loving from duty, all the difference in fact between Law and Grace. But the person who loves God from a new heart will not then break God's laws. It's absurd to say "I love God from a new heart. Now I will lie and steal, since it's my love that God really wants."
The first time I read this as 'will not then break God's legs'. Which, true, but more gratuitously violent. Oy, I need a coffee. To answer your point - of course the person who loves God does break God's laws, frequently. That's why we're imperfect and our love for God is imperfect. But what I think you're saying is that to embrace and willingly live sinfully is inconsistent with our love for God. In which case I agree, although I will add this - I don't think it's necessarily mutually exclusive. At the very least I don't think this is anywhere near as simplistic as 'I have decided to steal'. I would also add that it's for God to work out what the consequences of our choosing to live in any kind of sin will be.
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
It's absurd to use God's love of faithfulness as a justification of faithlessness.
Who was arguing this?
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
To define marriage, for example, as the faithful union of two men is being unfaithful to God.
This is where we differ. You appear to take for granted that homosexuality, even committed monogamous homosexuality, is always sin. I do not.
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
we'll reap what we sow, sure as eggs.
Which slave traders predicted the American Civil War and the slums in Harlem?
I would have thought this analogy could just as easily be used to argue against your point of view. The slave traders thought black people should not be allowed certain human rights. You're arguing, at the very least, that homosexual people should not be allowed to formalise their relationships. How do you know you won't be the one in for some unpleasant reaping?
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
In the same way, some say marriage is a flexible relationship between flexible numbers of persons who for the moment wish to live faithfully together. Marriage is independent of gender, and easily dissolved.
I understand you're making a point, but just so that you know - I'm not accepting this package deal. Suggesting, as I have, that God might be okay with faithful same-sex relationships, does not require I accept that marriage is 'flexible', that it can involve more than two people, or that it can be easily dissolved. I might accept any or all of these things, but the argument doesn't require this.
Posts: 467 | From: top of the pops to drawing the dole | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
I say "Gay marriage is morally wrong." Fred is offended.
Why are you telling Fred this? Has he asked you to marry him? Has he asked your permission to marry your son? Has he just invited you to his wedding? Is there something that compels you to give him your opinion of his marriage?
One of my uncles separated from his wife and lived with another woman for many, many years. If he'd have asked my opinion on the way he was managing his life, I'd have had to tell him that I thought it was morally wrong. But he didn't ask my opinion, and if I'd offered it unasked, I'm sure he'd have been offended.
And rightfully so.
quote:
Fred says "Gay marriage is morally right." Now I'm offended.
I understood why Fred was offended. Why are you offended? I would understand your saying, "Well, Fred, I think you're wrong." But you don't just think he's wrong. You're offended. Why is that? Are you always offended when someone disagrees with you?
quote:
Anyway, once we get past the smoke and mirrors, we discover moral simplicity: Marriage is the faithful union of a man and a woman. Sex is for Marriage.
Very clear. Very simple. Take it on faith, or leave it.
So what if Fred says, "I'll leave it, thank you"?
If Fred doesn't share your faith, why should he share the disciplines of your faith?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
Very clear. Very simple.
For me it's neither. Used to be once. I believed something similar to what you do. But eventually it unravelled, when I realised I couldn't continue to let my belief in revelation over-rule my experience. When you realise that on the one hand you have all this evidence for why being gay* isn't "disordered" and on the other your only reason for believing it to be so is "the Truth" which you have by revelation (in my case the bible, in yours I suspect Church tradition) - and when you further realise that by holding such a position you're creating a creating a breathing space or foothold for bigots and hate-mongers even if you're genuinely not one yourself - well then it becomes difficult not to question the "Truth".
I have read all 68 pages of this thread and I can find no evil, no harm of homosexuality that isn't either a product of the sin of others (e.g. bigotry), or a possibility for sin shared by heterosexuals (promiscuity, health risks). In other words, no inherent reason to call it wrong. Which would mean if the traditional view is correct that God has arbitrarily called something sin.
Perhaps that's so. Perhaps it's a kind of test. I can no longer believe it. If I could I couldn't call such a God 'good'. I say that as someone deeply uncomfortable with the fact that I am in conflict of centuries of teaching and what still appears to me to be the 'plain' meaning of the bible.
quote:
Take it on faith, or leave it.
No, no, no! I reject your false dichotomy. There are other options.
Can I also just say that I think you're misguided to argue the way you do. Assuming you actually hope to convince people of your point of view you need to stop making assertions and start backing up your points with argument and reason. This is not an attack, simply advice. If you stick to your current style of argument you'll eventually find no-one will engage with you, because you're not truly engaging with them.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
koshatnik
Shipmate
# 11938
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
Not willing to discuss that in depth. After 68 pages of this and all the other times it has been discussed on the ship [gays getting married] I realy don't feel I have anything new to add on the why-I-l-believe-that.
Duchess, I respect this, and I think it's a reasonable position. And absolutely - nobody's going to be helped by any of us telling them what we think over and over again. Relationships are a gazillion times more important.
However, as I've explained, I find that I periodically need to work out certain things regarding my beliefs, and this is one of those times.
I'm sure I have very little to add that's new, but one of the things about joining the ship five (?) years in is that most of the big topics have been done to death many times over. The topics I'm most interested on this forum tend to be in Dead Horses or Limbo. And I do find that I need to develop my own thinking by interaction: asking questions, proposing ideas and having others challenge me. So that's why I'm here. I don't think everyone is required to defend their views on this.
Posts: 467 | From: top of the pops to drawing the dole | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
koshatnik
Shipmate
# 11938
|
Posted
Nurks, please don't take this as an attack, but I find it much, much easier to understand your point when you say what you mean rather than using analogy.
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
I fail to see why one side of the debate should be gagged, lest we offend.
I think this thread is an excellent example of how this subject can be debated without offence (although I'm still only 9 or 10 pages into my catch-up reading). We're all adults here, we can handle an adverse argument. In other circles I think there's sometimes a need to tread more carefully, but I would dispute that either side of the debate is being gagged.
As others have just pointed out, problems arise when you argue as though your ideas are indisputable. To be honest, I think as a Christian it's downright dangerous to say anything like, 'Take it on faith, or leave it'. As Late Paul pointed out, in this case as in most there are in-between options. It may not be what you mean, but to me it smells like you're saying that if somebody can't accept your version of the argument, they must reject God.
Posts: 467 | From: top of the pops to drawing the dole | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
I've been reading off and on all afternoon, debating whether to join in. grushi, your last point about taking or leaving it is excellent. I am a lesbian, in a longtime committed relationship, married last year when it became possible. I left the church nearly three years ago after a lifetime (at that stage 40 years) of serving in one capacity or another. The growing number of people who baldly called me a sinner without considering anything about me except my sexuality drove me out. That hasn't stopped me being a Christian, and my partner and I still live our lives according to the gospels.
I can take honest disagreement, like that of Duchess - and a couple of my friends hold the same opinion. I can take honest questioning, like grushi's - I like honest questions. But banging on and on like nurks is doing doesn't express the gospels or anything about God to me. Nor does it allow me any room to express the gospels, since nurks has already written me off. It expresses pretty much nothing to me - I've heard it all before, in person, over the last 25 years.
In some ways, I hope I am offending nurks. It is very difficult to get people to remember that while it is their very definite opinions they are spouting, its my life rather than my opinions that they're treading on. Whatever I say in return doesn't have the same force, since my life appears to be less valued than their opinions. The churches accept the nurks of this world but most of them don't accept me, so this debate has more concrete effects on me in the long run.
grushi, your gay friend who dumped you behaved badly. I can understand where he was coming from, but it was still pretty bigoted.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
koshatnik
Shipmate
# 11938
|
Posted
Arabella, your story gave me a hollow feeling in my stomach. It saddens me hugely to hear that you were driven out of the church after 40 years. At all, actually, but after 40 years - I couldn't imagine dealing with that. As a Christian I'm ashamed the church couldn't accept you, and heartened that the experience hasn't led to you chucking the whole thing in. As I posted above, I'm aware that this is a debate which can cause real people real pain. I'll do my best to explore my thinking on this respectfully.
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
grushi, your gay friend who dumped you behaved badly. I can understand where he was coming from, but it was still pretty bigoted.
She, actually. For what it's worth, I think she had a few chips on her shoulder, not all of them to do with Christians or sexuality. A good egg mostly and good value, but you didn't want to get on her wrong side.
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
In some ways, I hope I am offending nurks. It is very difficult to get people to remember that while it is their very definite opinions they are spouting, its my life rather than my opinions that they're treading on.
If you think posting with this kind of honesty is to offend, I say let yourself go. Offend!
Posts: 467 | From: top of the pops to drawing the dole | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
koshatnik
Shipmate
# 11938
|
Posted
Forgot to add: same sex marriage is legal in NZ now? Good for you lot! I've been away from Australia for a couple of years, but can I assume the same isn't yet true across the Tasman?
Posts: 467 | From: top of the pops to drawing the dole | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
I say "Gay marriage is morally wrong." Fred is offended.
Fred says "Gay marriage is morally right." Now I'm offended.
It's all fair and square. Fred calls me Homophobic and I call him Christophobic. He calls me Bigot and I call him Disordered.
It may not be so symmetrical, though.
Fred may be a faithful Christian, and so your choice of epithet for him offends his faith as well as his sexuality.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
Fred's cunning, you see. He uses 'being offended' as a weapon to silence me. He won't shut up, mind you, whether he offends me or not.
You mean like you and the other people who share your silly, out-dated and totally ill-informed opinion have silenced those who don't agree with you for milenia? Is using terms like "sinful", "heretics", "blasphemers", "unnatural" "Christophobic" or "disordered" anything whatsoever other than a means of attempted social control to keep "minority" viewpoints gagged? No. It is not. It's just that now that you and your silly opinion are the minority viewpoint you suddenly don't like it. Surprise! Those who want to think that they can call GLBT people, or friends or family members of GLBT people, a rude name and thereby "win" the argument are holding on to a world that is gone, and will never come back, thank Gawd...
nurks, you are 100% wrong on this issue.
grushi, you are 100% correct about this issue.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
Fred says "Gay marriage is morally right." Now I'm offended.
Can I ask you what right you have to be offended by what other people, consenting adults, do with their wobbly bits? Esp if what they are doing is within the law. It's hardly as though we are talking about bestiality or peadophilia, although the more stupid homophobes like to make those comparisons...
I dispute that you have any right whatsoever to be "offended". You have no right to be "offended" by what people do in their private lives, within the law, between consenting adults. It really is as stark and as simple and as straight-forward as that.
As Arabella says, you are talking about some opinion that you have, GLBT people are talking about their right to be themselves. Their right to life trumps your "opinion". Period. Full stop. The end. Most straight people will not be in affected in any way whatsoever by "gay marriage" so their "right" to be "offended" is not on an equal footing, either morally or lawfully, with the right of GLBT people to live life as themselves.
If your idea of love and Turth involves calling people to live a lie then maybe you need to re-consider whether your ideas are bogus.
(Correctly attributing quote)
[ 23. November 2006, 11:44: Message edited by: Papio ]
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
You have no right to be "offended" by what people do in their private lives, within the law, between consenting adults. It really is as stark and as simple and as straight-forward as that.
Sorry to treble post, but I realised that this statement needs some qualification because as it stands it is a little bit retarded...
For example, it would mean that I had no right to be offended by fox hunting, if it was only open to invited guests and done on private land, yet I would still find that offensive. I don't want to go into that tanget too much, but the question I had to ask myself was is that any more or less private, or public, than a "gay wedding". Answer: I don't know. But to say someone has a right to be offended by one and not the other....I realised that I can't think of a way to demonstrate that...
So I apologise for the above statement. It was not properly thought out.
But I would still ask you to consider the position that most people, whether they agree with you or not, are going to leave you alone to live your life as you see fit, as long as you don't break the law or harm others to more than an acceptable degree (everyone harms others to some degree, it's unavoidable). Why not extend that same courtesy to GLBT people? I don't get why your interpretation of a few verses of a a bunch of religious texts, called the Bible, gets to trump people's right to be left alone.
As far as I know, none of the five verses is crystal clear in it's meaning, if you allow for context, includiing historical context, translation and so on. At least one is, I think, in Leviticus, and people have argued that Leviticus no longer applies since the Redemption that Christ achieved. Some of the other verses may talk of temple prostitution or to sexual orgies "in church" or may have been written before the argument about Leviticus was thought of, since it took the church a while to formulate it's theology and you can see theological tensions, at least, from different New Testament authors. I really don't know.
But I don't see how you can either, and I don't see why your opinion gets to be more important than other people's rights.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I'm not sure that "right" is the right word. You can be offended all you want. Tough shit. You have the right to be offended, just as I have the right to be offensive. Get over it. (not addressed to Papio in particular)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
...
I dispute that you have any right whatsoever to be "offended". ..
So, why don't you tell us who has a right to be offended and who doesn't? Surely we will all take it to heart.
Not.
I am one who rarely takes offense, but it is not up to anyone else when and to what I do so.
Gays may take offense if someone says gas sex is sin. Divorced people may take offense if someone says divorce is sin. Christians may take offense if someone says "all Christians are/believe/should ...". Muslims may take offense if some are taken off a plane for praying.
Retract your stupid comment now.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Retract your stupid comment now.
People who are "offended" by homsexuality BADLY need to get a life and mind their own business.
However, much as I will tell them to suck it up and mind their own business and stop having the audacity to think that their opinion or "right to be offended" by people who are just trying to mind their own business and who are hurting no-one, might actually matter in some way, I think you will find that I retracted that comment nearly three hours before your redundant response it it. So please tell me who is stupid now?
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Retract your stupid comment now.
People who are "offended" by homsexuality BADLY need to get a life and mind their own business.
However, much as I will tell them to suck it up and mind their own business and stop having the audacity to think that their opinion or "right to be offended" by people who are just trying to mind their own business and who are hurting no-one, might actually matter in some way, I think you will find that I retracted that comment nearly three hours before your redundant response it it. So please tell me who is stupid now?
Take the personal attacks to hell.
I called you comment stupid - you called me stupid. That is unacceptable outside hell, and you know that.
As it is, I apologize - I spent a considerable time writing that post, and stupidly didn't check for updates. I am sorry.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
